1. You only asked "privilege at whose authority", not the methodologies said authority could use. I never said that an equivalent to the authority would be limited to using identical methodologies as those who issue driver's licenses and auto insurance. Are you reading things differently than as they are written again?
2. Well, you've gone from what was written to another thing entirely without any logical explanation of how you got there, so your literacy remains suspect.
3. Good for you. You still aren't presenting evidence of rational thinking, though.
4. No, it's not. The "bandwagon fallacy" is committed when one asserts that the opinion of the majority is valid. My statement did not reference an opinion at all, let alone appeal to an opinion's popularity as merit for its truth. My statement was a verifiable fact. Pretty much the rest of the free world lacks a Second Amendment or an equivalent thereof, yet they are still free. That fact refutes your earlier claim and it is not a fallacy to point that out to you.
5. I never said anything about revolution. Are you reading things differently than as they've been written again? Because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said in point 5.
I'm giving you one last chance to type something coherent.
1. So you are suggesting that the American worker acquiesce to the capitalist-controlled state and private insurance companies? Again, are you a socialist or not?
2. Any intelligent discourse involves addressing the implications of what one writes. That is a staple of any analysis of ideas. If you don't understand that, then maybe it is you who needs to improve your literacy.
3. So it is obvious to me that you either have some novel definition of "rational" or you don't understand what the word rational means. I provided the reasons to justify my position. You continue to refuse to address them and merely continue to assert "You still aren't presenting evidence of rational thinking."
4. You are the only person who used the terminology "free world." My original statement was:
"When gun-ownership is not socially protected the people lack the means to affirm their will outside of the rigged political process. "
And you talk about me showing signs of illiteracy? I'll bite though. Do you think living in capitalism and liberal democracies constitutes a "free world"? If so, why are you estimating freedom in terms of bourgeois values while also calling yourself a socialist? Your statement doesn't even address mine. Instead it appeals to bourgeois mumbo-jumbo about the "free world." Hence, I made the claim of a bandwagon fallacy, because the only way I could parse such a response to my statement, from a self-proclaimed socialist, is that it was a rough claim of some normative position that "other countries are free, without socially protected gun ownership", which is based on opinions to questions like "what constitutes a "free world"? No country (or people rather) under capitalism is "free" and it never will be "free" in the sense a socialist would use the word unless the people have a means to liberate themselves outside of corrupted political institutions.
5. There are only two options: reform or revolution. If you don't understand that, then it is obvious you haven't read a lick of socialist philosophy and praxis. THAT is a sign of illiteracy. When you respond "Good for you. You're wrong" to the statement "I assume you're a reformist," then it is logical for me to conclude that you are a revolutionary socialist. You don't need to say anything about revolution for me to form that conclusion, because it logically follows that all socialists who aren't reformists are revolutionaries.
Yet still, you question my literacy? Don't make me giggle.